nexus_v3_mod

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful bits of context beyond the annotations: the endpoint is experimental (stability risk) and the response carries a global mod ID. It stops short of describing response shape or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the experimental caveat second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though terse enough that the second sentence does double duty as both warning and return-value hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries some of the return-value burden and does so minimally by mentioning the global mod ID. For a two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is adequate but leaves the undocumented modId parameter and the distinction from nexus_mod unresolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (game is documented with an example domain, modId is not). The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning, format, or valid ranges, so the bare modId integer is left for the agent to guess at.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ("Get mod details") plus the API surface it targets (API v3), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the sibling nexus_mod, leaving the v3-vs-legacy choice to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus nexus_mod or nexus_v3_files, and no prerequisites. The only usage-flavored signal is the "Currently experimental" caveat, which is a warning rather than routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.